Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/02/18
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]All Erwin has done is report conversations with Leica Engineers who state that on theoretical grounds two aspherical surfaces are an inferior design to one surface. As far as I know, he has not actually tested one (feel free to correct me, Erwin). So who knows in practice which one takes better photographs? And who really cares? I am sure both lenses are excellent. If I didn't own the one I have (bought new years ago before the advent of the ASPH version), I'd never buy one instead of the 2nd version, regardless of which one was better. The difference in cost is simply too great. Unless you are a collector, you'd have to be nuts to get the first version regardless of quality. Dan C. ps...I actually use mine, though not that often. There is a pic on my web site taken with it, but the scan was terrible (scanner was out of focus I think), so it says nothing about the quality or lack therof of the lens. I still like my old pre-asph summilux 35, and I worry about it less. . At 10:32 PM 18-02-00 -0500, Austin Franklin wrote: > >[Austin] Do you have any information that says the first versions are any >better? I take it you don't believe Erwin is correct in his assessment >that the 2nd version is optically better because of only one aspherical >surface? > >Dan C has offered to test the two out, if someone wants to send him a 2nd >version....but until then, all one can do is speculate... > >I'll put my money (or at least less of it, that is ;-) on the later version >for now...until it's proven via some reasonable tests, not just random >drive by shootings, that if I spend over 2x the money I'll get superior >results...if it ends up they're the same, to me, it isn't worth the extra >dough... > >---------------- > > >